About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 14
CSPAN2 8
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
the civil war in afghanistan. i do not understand why members of congress want to spend $10 billion a month in afghanistan when our people back home are struggling. i can assure you the american people do not understand it, either. in june, a poll was conducted by the pew research center where 56% of the american people polled said bring our troops home now. not later. mr. speaker, i brought back the picture of edy and stephanie. their father and lieutenant colonel palmer, died, and that continues to haunt me. and the way they died continues to haunt me. that's the reason i wanted to bring this picture down here again. they were given the task to train afghans to be policemen. the two were shot and murdered by one of the trainees. what really haunts me is the email sergeant baldwin sent to his wife the day before he was shot and killed. i quote the email, i don't trust them. i don't trust them. for anything. not for anything at all. why in the world do we continue to send our young men and women overseas to get theirselves blown up, shot, and murdered by people they are trying to train? the
rodriguez says he doesn't expect violence in afghanistan to start decreasing until next year. from the pentagon earlier today, this is 45 minutes. >> general rodriguez, it's counselor dave lapin at the pentagon. if you're ready to go, i'll introduce you and we'll get started. >> ok, dave, go ahead, thanks. >> thank you. good morning to those here, good evening in afghanistan. i'd like to welcome pack to the pentagon briefing room, army lieutenant general david rodriguez. he's commander of the international security assistance force joint command, also known as i.j.c. and also the deputy commander of the united states forces afghanistan. general rodriguez's current tour began in june, 2009, he became the first commander of the i.j.c. in october of that year. prior to that, general rodriguez was commander of regional command east for 15 months from january, 2007 to april, 2008. next week after two straight years in command and more than 40 months in after gap stan over the past 4 1/2 year, general rodriguez is ski wruled to change command and return stateside to have u.s. army forces
away from capitol hill, the economy and debt crisis are weighing heavily on u.s. troops in afghanistan. the top question on their minds saturday, even as bombings rocked the city around them, was the top u.s. military officer couldn't answer. will we get paid? these are soldiers in afghanistan with the bombs bursting around them. here's what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, and i quote, "i honestly don't know the answer to that question." admiral mike mcmullin responded, statement telling them to work each day to defend this country. wearing the uniform, listening to bombs go off around them. that is why today what is referred to in the press as real people. i guess we're not. we have students like laura and sidney. we have veterans like bill and roger and carlos and ariana who is a senior. guerm who is a senior. felicia is a senior. alyssa is a senior. they are here representing the millions of people around this country who are as frayed of the soldiers on the frontline in afghanistan. we don't have more delaying tactics? we need to get to the business of hand. we have
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get our country back on the path to
down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requires the passage of a balanced budget const
the wars in iraqnd and afghanistan, which the republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick and not real savings. the yet, the ryan budget, which almost a every house and senate republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. so, they say it is real savings to thee ryan plan with state savings in the reid proposal.-- i am sorry, but you can't have it both ways. reid' further, senator reid's plan actually is all cuts. i don't necessarily like that. contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debtt ceiling increase. mh as much as i don't like this aspect of it, it doesn't include any revenues. even though a "washington post" abc newsabc poll said that 72% f the american public believes we should have those makingma over. $250,000 pay more. 72%.lo what republicans haveng wanted l along and now we are giving it to wen them. and all of the cuts and plans up and supported by republicans in the past. so, we are presentingse a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. the pretense that they are using to reject it just doesn't pass the j smell test. and according to cbo, it sav
of the american people. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in afghanistan and was asked by a number of soldiers whether they were going to get their checks next week. how can you allow them to wonder whether they are going to get paid? >> we will be able to come to an agreement. >> if we could have had this with a bipartisan agreement? >> it could have been finished early this past week. there was a bipartisan agreement between myself and the leaders to move the underlying bill through the house yesterday. all the president had to do was say yes and it would have moved quickly through both the house and the senate. we wasted a week that we did not need to waste. now we have been driven into this and the president has to decide how we will get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, we are dealing with a reasonable and as possible people that want this crisis to end as quickly as possible. >> let me add, the country is not going to default for the first time in history. that is not going to happen. we have a level of seriousness with the
in afghanistan in a strategy of nation building that is not the best use of our national security, not the best use of our soldiers who are there to fight for our national security, but those are decisions that were made in the past. and we must pay the bill on those decisions even when i disagreed with them. and then we need to put together a plan that takes on our deficit and our debt, and that plan has to put all of the options on the table. some of my colleagues across the aisle, they said, well, we want to protect the tax spending programs where we've tucked in tax provisions for the wealthy and the well connected. we want to defend those. we don't want to touch those for the best-off americans. but we want to cut the programs for working americans. that is unacceptable. we have seen enormous increase in the disparity between the wages and welfare of our citizens in general and the best-off becoming much, much wealthier proportionately. we can't continue to say that we're going to protect the well-connected while attacking working families. that's not the america we want to build. we want
military to be getting the news in afghanistan and iraq of all the upheaval in washington, because they're getting the news, of course. and for them to worry, oh, my gosh what happens august 2 if my paycheck isn't there or my wife or my husband -- for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay our mortgage or the basic expenses? i just want to put it in perspective here. we have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands that are making under $20,000 a year. now, those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, and especially if they've got children. my goodness, they're making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps. so i don't think we ought to make them worry for ten seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families. in my state of texas, there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in iraq and afghanistan. there are more than 97,000 service members depl
is in afghanistan, visiting the troops. the question they are asking, will they be paid if this default happens? let me put this plainly. if senator reid's plan passes as they pay down their domestic spending spree with the blood and sweat of our troops, the military will break. we have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the massive entitlement programs that are actually bankrupting the country. that stops here. the budget passed last night shrinks the government and, most importantly, holt's three years of neglect to our armed forces. thank you. now i would like to ask the gentleman from arizona -- i mean virginia, i do not know how that happened, the chairman of our readiness subcommittee. >> i think that this is an important issue. over the last several weeks we have heard a lot about the word compromise. i think that the american people realize that overlaid on that are two other words. we need to make sure that we are having common sense on whatever compromise that we have. we do not understand why it is the democratic administration constantly believes we need to compromise our national s
wars in iraq and afghanistan and participate in the nato exercise in libya. that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that has gone up 84%, military spending, in the last ten years, gone up 84%. we know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs -- that would be like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments, veterans payments. spending for those payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary spending which would include things like building highways, keeping federal prisons open, providing pell grants to college students, giving children from poor families early childhood education, putting money at the national institutes of health for madam chair research. that's one section of the budget. it comprises 12% of our budget. in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up zero percent. no increase in spending in that section. most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years, and mandatory programs, 32% over ten years. the bigge
on the home of someone serving in a rack or afghanistan. -- in iraq and afghanistan. host: why did they see this as an area that need to be filled? guest: the problem has been wrapped up in the general difficulties. it turns out a lot of homes have gone into -- a lot of people have gone into default of mortgages. some companies are better than others at collecting monthly payments and keeping track of paperwork. the ones have proved not to be so good at it have caught service members in the riptide. we have not gotten your payment, we over charge them. foreclosure. that sort of thing going on. this has been a politically embarrassing process of writing wrongs done against members of the military in active duty. host: gym as white as a deployed serviceman and against paying his mortgage -- jim asked why a deployed servicemen against paying his mortgage? guest: he is not exempt against paying his mortgage. is exempt against being foreclosed on. as it has been explained to me, a service member might be in the field for a week or two and have virtually no contact with the outside work force the
of iraq and afghanistan, it would take a serious look out of social security and medicare and in many cases contributing to this deficit. and it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the president can sign it and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take us in the right direction. but we don't have something like that. instead we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the constitution, the guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies can make profits is completely left alone. he doesn't have to do anything. but for the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children and her parents and more for just about anything she wants in her life. there's something wrong with that picture. sacrifice that is broadly shared is needed in
iraq and afghanistan sooner than many here would like or that the president would like, and save substantial sums if we do that. most certainly if we're going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billions, despite all of their power and all of their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying, maybe the billionaires who are doing phenomenally well may have to contribute to deficit reduction. yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax hyphens in pwerpld and the cayman eye hraldz -- in bermuda and the cayman islands, maybe they are going to have to start paying their fair share. on my web site which is sanders.senate.gov, i put a small letter which said to the president, mr. president, stand tall. take on these right-wing ideologues who want to make devastating cuts to working families. and in a couple of weeks we have 135,000 signatures on that letter, and i think that letter reflects what the american people want. they want shared sacrifice. they do not want to see the elderly, the kids or working families being battered more and more, es
administration. mr. courtney: starting with iraq and afghanistan wars, two wars which, again, lots of debate about whether it was in our national interest, but in any case what is not debatable is that we never paid for a penny of either one of those conflicts. the bush tax cuts, $1.8 trillion . nondefense discretionary spending, $608 billion. tarp, the wall street bailout, which a lot of people forget occurred under the last administration, a medicare drug benefit which was passed in 2005 which was never paid for, not a nickel of that benefit was ever paid for. we were either offsetting revenue or other -- with either offsetting revenue or other spending reductions. and the 2008 stimulus bill which the bush administration had presented, a lot of people don't remember the check they got sent during that time for, again, none of those expenditures were paid for and many of those expenditures such as the bush tax cuts and the iraq and afghanistan war are still recurring expenses which are still accumulating bills and debts which this country is obligated for. when the obama administration took
of every six department of defense dollars is going to afghanistan. we got the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened
not be able to do things militarily to support our troops in afghanistan and iraq. i view this, i think it bears close watching, but there is a perception that somehow we're giving our china, india, brazil and other countries an advantage. i view this program as a two-way street. it does provide a degree of access to american companies and so i would be also reluctant -- i reluctantly oppose your amendment but i can assure you that both of us feel very strongly that it bears watching. it has borne some fruit. mr. frelinghuysen: it's not money wasted, it's not money given away to competitors. thank you for yielding. mr. visclosky: but again, i think it draws attention that we should be closely monitoring these funds. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from fey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i'd like to yield to dr. harris from maryland. mr. harris: let me briefly address this so we can move on. we only cut $6 million out of the $8 million. there's budget language further on t
of iraq and afghanistan. today we just voted h.r. 2650 to, in fact, establish a club of losers for these patriots who have served their country. what a shame. what a shame. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection. mr. scalise: mr. speaker, the house finally passed a real plan that addresses this nation's spending crisis. i think many american families know that washington has a spending problem because they have been living within their means. they have wen been trying to figure out to do what what they've got. and we passed a plan that actually would cut, cap and balance and controls spending in washington. and what's the president's plan? we have still yet to hear his plan. we hear speeches and class warfare where the president puts one part of america against the other. if he confiscated every dollar, it wouldn't address the problem. it's time to get real. if the president wants to get serious about addressing the spending problems, it's time to confront what cut, cap and balance does and tell washingt
of questions. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in afghanistan and he was asked whether soldiers will get their checks next week. how can you allow the soldiers to even wonder whether they will get paid? >> senator mcconnell and higher months -- both confident that we can come to an agreement with the white house and in this impasse. -- end this impasse. >> we could have had this bill finished early this past week. there was a bipartisan agreement between myself and the senate leaders to move the underlying bill that will be in moving to the house yesterday. the president, all he had to do was say yes and that milk -- that bill would have move quickly through both the house and senate. so we have wasted a week we did not need to waste. now we have been driven into this call the second it is time for the president to decide how we are going to get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, i think we are dealing with a reasonable, responsible people who want this crisis to end as quickly as possible and i am confident that we will. >>
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)